FINDING ANSWERS
It is a triumph of the law and our criminal justice system.
That’s what I said in my Facebook post on Oct. 1 when the guilty verdict was promulgated by the Manila Regional Trial Court Branch 11 against 10 fraternity members of Aegis Juris for the 2017 hazing death of UST law student Atio Castillo.
The wheels of justice may have grinded slowly—seven long years in this case—but in the end, the court reaching a decision to convict all of the accused who were sentenced to life imprisonment demonstrates the effectiveness of the Anti-Hazing Law (RA 8049) I authored in 1995 during my second term as senator.
The court decision certainly made Horacio and Carmina Castillo, parents of Atio, breathe a sigh of relief. “Finally, justice was delivered,” Horacio said at the Kapihan sa Manila Prince Hotel media forum last Friday. “Hearing the judge say ‘guilty beyond reasonable doubt,’ nabunutan ako ng tinik (a thorn within me was pulled out),” Carmina recalled.
Other Kapihan resource persons were DOJ Deputy State Prosecutor Olivia Torrevillas, who called on people to maintain their faith in the justice system, and DILG Undersecretary Lord Villanueva who said local government units can help deter hazing by spreading awareness about the tough provisions of RA 8049, as amended by RA 11053 that imposed harsher penalties.
I am of the belief that certainty of arrest and conviction, along with very tough provisions of the law, can be a great deterrent to crime. The latest verdict should strengthen such certainty of conviction to deter hazing.
Slowly but surely, certainty of arrest and conviction can be achievable. So far, three convictions have been attained under RA 8049. Last Aug. 16, three former PMA cadets were convicted by RTC Branch 5 in Baguio City for the death of Darwin Dormitorio. And in 2015, the Supreme Court affirmed the conviction of two frat men for the 2006 fatal hazing of a UP Los Baños student.
During deliberations in the 9th Congress, I made sure RA 8049 would have very sharp teeth to shatter the innate conspiracy of silence among hazing perpetrators. Among its tough provisions is one that says “the presence of any person during the hazing is prima facie evidence of participation therein as principal unless he prevented the commission of the acts punishable herein.”
“The law is rigorous in penalizing the crime of hazing,” the SC itself declared in its July 1, 2015 decision (GR No. 209464) upholding the rulings of Calamba, Laguna Regional Trial Court Branch 36 and the Court of Appeals on the conviction of Alpha Phi Omega fraternity members Dandy Dungo and Gregorio Sibal Jr. for the fatal hazing of UP student Marlon Villanueva.
Here are excerpts from the SC landmark decision: “Hazing has been a phenomenon that has beleaguered the country's educational institutions and communities. News of young men beaten to death as part of fraternities' violent initiation rites supposedly to seal fraternal bond has sent disturbing waves to lawmakers. Hence, R.A. No. 8049 was signed into law on June 7, 1995. Doubts on the effectiveness of the law were raised. The Court, however, scrutinized its provisions and it is convinced that the law is rigorous in penalizing the crime of hazing.
“Hopefully, the present case will serve as a guide to the bench and the bar on the application of R.A. No. 8049. Through careful case-build up and proper presentation of evidence before the court, it is not impossible for the exalted constitutional presumption of innocence of the accused to be overcome and his guilt for the crime of hazing be proven beyond reasonable doubt. The prosecution must bear in mind the secretive nature of hazing, and carefully weave its chain of circumstantial evidence.
“Bearing in mind the concealment of hazing, it is only logical and proper for the prosecution to resort to the presentation of circumstantial evidence to prove it…
“The unbroken chain of events laid down leaves us no other conclusion other than the petitioners’ participation in the hazing…With the fact of hazing, the identity of the petitioners and their participation therein duly proven, the moral certainty that produces conviction in an unprejudiced mind has been satisfied,” the SC said.
With the High Court expressing hope that the 2015 landmark case “will serve as a guide to the bench and the bar on the application of R.A. No. 8049,” other courts handling hazing cases at present or in the future can be expected to be guided indeed by the SC ruling, thereby ensuring that it really does not pay to commit the crime of hazing.